phonearena_author

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'returns' an author's public profile, which is a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or read-only. It also does not disclose whether the recent articles list is paginated or truncated, or whether any rate limits apply. The description adds some clarity about the content but misses key behavioral context like response size or error handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loads the main purpose ('Get a PhoneArena author profile') before listing the returned fields. It avoids unnecessary elaboration and is structured logically. It could arguably be more concise by dropping the enumeration of fields (which is also implied by 'author profile'), but it remains efficient and readable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema, two optional parameters (with no required ones), and no annotations. The description provides a list of returned fields but does not specify how to choose between slug and URL, or whether both are required in combination. It doesn't mention error behaviors if the author isn't found, or whether the profile includes articles pagination. Given that the schema is minimal and the description is the only source of behavioral info, it is somewhat complete but leaves gaps around parameter selection and return format specifics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, each with clear descriptions. The description itself does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema, but given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does implicitly indicate that 'slug' is a username and 'url' is a canonical URL, which matches the schema. Since the schema already explains both parameters thoroughly, the description offers minimal additional semantic value, warranting a 4 for not being redundant.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get a PhoneArena author profile' and enumerates the returned fields (name, role, biography, image, social links, recent articles). This is a specific verb+resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling author tools (e.g., nzherald_author, pcgamer_author), but the tool name itself (phonearena_author) distinguishes it, and the description is unambiguous about what it returns.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving an author's profile on PhoneArena, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus other author tools or when to use the slug vs URL parameter. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., knowing the author's slug) or alternative tools for searching authors. It is minimally adequate but leaves the agent to infer the intended use case.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.